Since you refused to read my previous posts regarding the Democrats desire to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" here is something just a bit shorter that maybe your attention span can grasp.

From a recent radio interview.

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They=92ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it=92s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it=92s called the Fairness Standard, whether it=92s called something else =97 I absolutely think it=92s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that=92s gonna happen. Yep.

UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, a liberal talk radio executive.

On Feb 6, 7:59=A0pm, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote: > "Joe Long" <nos...@spam.com> wrote in message > > news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... > > > > > FL Turbo wrote: > >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> > >> wrote: > > >>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free > >>> speech > >>> issue. =A0His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the = new > >>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. > > >> Please tell me you're only Trolling. > >> Please. > > > Although he's probably trolling, there are =A0plenty of people in this > > country who DO believe such drivel. > > >> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this > >> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully > >> protected by the Constitution. > > >> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. > > > I don't believe it's a majority. =A0You find it mostly in the more Libe= ral > > universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. > > You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on broadca= st > tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. =A0X-rated language, explicit= real > violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. =A0Heard you were all in for = the > new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. > Good for you, quite liberal actually.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -

If you can't recognize the fact that the Founding Fathers intent in drafting the First Amendment was precisely to protect political speech then you are too fucking stupid to be allowed to have an internent connection. You may hurt yourself.

On Feb 6, 5:50=A0pm, Joe Long <nos...@spam.com > wrote: > FL Turbo wrote: > > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> > > wrote: > >> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free = speech > >> issue. =A0His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the n= ew > >> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. > > > Please tell me you're only Trolling. > > Please. > > Although he's probably trolling, there are =A0plenty of people in this > country who DO believe such drivel. > > > I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this > > country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully > > protected by the Constitution. > > > Please tell me I'm wrong about that. > > I don't believe it's a majority. =A0You find it mostly in the more Libera= l > universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. > > -- > Joe Long aka ChipRider > Somewhere on the Range

I don't know anyone - not a single person - personally, that supports the fairness doctrine.

This thing is fucking ugly, lets hope it never sees the light of day. I find it much easier to tolerate a legion of self-righteous twits with limbaugh bumper stickers as opposed to government controls of radio dialog.

Of course that goes for people like Howard Stern too. I don't want James Dobson and Focus on the Family dictating what can and can't be put on the air either (the control they were able to exert over the FCC and other arenas during the Bush travesty was disheartening).

Date: 06 Feb 2009 11:44:39
From:
Subject: Re: Just for you Clave

On Feb 6, 6:58=A0am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote: > <wsule...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:5748608f-714d-43a9-977c-b47c396de7f5@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 6, 4:50 am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote: > > > > > "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > > >news:7uus56xaao.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > > On Feb 5 2009 8:45 PM, Alim Nassor wrote: > > > > All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They > > > think nobody listens to him anyway. > > > Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free socie= ty > > can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly > > small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an illness, a > > destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current target is > > destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party= . > > So > > from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such= a > > bad thing :) > >>Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this > >>"censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy... > > Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free spe= ech > issue. =A0His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new > leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party.

I'm not even a fan of Rush. I do find Republicans slightly less repulsive than Democrats in general, but that's as much of a compliment as I can give to either side.

With that said, of course what Rush says is free speech. You obviously subscribe to a double standard here, and convince yourself that it's okay by labeling controversial speech that you like as "free speech" and labeling controversial speech that you don't like as something different. "Hate speech," perhaps?

What's the harm in letting the man say what he wants to and letting the people decide whether they should listen or not?

Date: 06 Feb 2009 06:49:01
From:
Subject: Re: Just for you Clave

On Feb 6, 4:50=A0am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote: > "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > > news:7uus56xaao.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > On Feb 5 2009 8:45 PM, Alim Nassor wrote: > > > All this is just to get Rush off the air. =A0Why do liberals care? =A0T= hey > > think nobody listens to him anyway. > > Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free society > can have. =A0Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly > small minority position (radical right wingnuts). =A0He is an illness, a > destructive force, and needs to be off the air. =A0His current target is > destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party. = =A0So > from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such a > bad thing :)

Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this "censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy...

<wsuleifj@gmail.com > wrote in message news:5748608f-714d-43a9-977c-b47c396de7f5@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 6, 4:50 am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none > wrote: > "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > > news:7uus56xaao.ln2@recgroups.com... > > > On Feb 5 2009 8:45 PM, Alim Nassor wrote: > > > All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They > > think nobody listens to him anyway. > > Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free society > can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly > small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an illness, a > destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current target is > destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party. > So > from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such a > bad thing :)

>>Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this >>"censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy...

Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free speech issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party.

>>>Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this >>>"censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy... > >Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free speech >issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party.

> ><wsuleifj@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:5748608f-714d-43a9-977c-b47c396de7f5@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >On Feb 6, 4:50 am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote: >> "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >> >> news:7uus56xaao.ln2@recgroups.com... >> >> > On Feb 5 2009 8:45 PM, Alim Nassor wrote: >> >> > All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They >> > think nobody listens to him anyway. >> >> Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free society >> can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly >> small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an illness, a >> destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current target is >> destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party. >> So >> from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such a >> bad thing :) > >>>Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this >>>"censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy... > >Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free speech >issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party.

Please tell me you're only Trolling. Please.

I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully protected by the Constitution.

>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free speech >> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. > > Please tell me you're only Trolling. > Please.

Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this country who DO believe such drivel.

> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this > country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully > protected by the Constitution. > > Please tell me I'm wrong about that.

I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more Liberal universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves.

"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com > wrote in message news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... > FL Turbo wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >> wrote: > >>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free >>> speech >>> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. >> >> Please tell me you're only Trolling. >> Please. > > Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this > country who DO believe such drivel. > >> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this >> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully >> protected by the Constitution. >> >> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. > > I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more Liberal > universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. > > You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on broadcast tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. X-rated language, explicit real violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. Heard you were all in for the new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. Good for you, quite liberal actually.

> >"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message >news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... >> FL Turbo wrote: >>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >>> wrote: >> >>>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free >>>> speech >>>> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >>>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. >>> >>> Please tell me you're only Trolling. >>> Please. >> >> Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this >> country who DO believe such drivel. >> >>> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this >>> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully >>> protected by the Constitution. >>> >>> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. >> >> I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more Liberal >> universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. >> >> >You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on broadcast >tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. X-rated language, explicit real >violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. Heard you were all in for the >new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. >Good for you, quite liberal actually.

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message news:1h6uo4ll0n8iofro421989of0c1msaqch0@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:59:23 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> > wrote: > >> >>"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message >>news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... >>> FL Turbo wrote: >>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >>>> wrote: >>> >>>>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free >>>>> speech >>>>> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >>>>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. >>>> >>>> Please tell me you're only Trolling. >>>> Please. >>> >>> Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this >>> country who DO believe such drivel. >>> >>>> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this >>>> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully >>>> protected by the Constitution. >>>> >>>> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. >>> >>> I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more Liberal >>> universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. >>> >>> >>You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on >>broadcast >>tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. X-rated language, explicit >>real >>violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. Heard you were all in for the >>new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. >>Good for you, quite liberal actually. > > But YOU want to restrict political speech on the airwaves? > No, you have defined "political" speech to be what you say it is, which is bullshit. Censorship is its already being practiced, as such, in a fair system, your guy is out of line, needs to go.

> >"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message >news:1h6uo4ll0n8iofro421989of0c1msaqch0@4ax.com... >> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:59:23 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message >>>news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... >>>> FL Turbo wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >>>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free >>>>>> speech >>>>>> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >>>>>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. >>>>> >>>>> Please tell me you're only Trolling. >>>>> Please. >>>> >>>> Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this >>>> country who DO believe such drivel. >>>> >>>>> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this >>>>> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully >>>>> protected by the Constitution. >>>>> >>>>> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. >>>> >>>> I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more Liberal >>>> universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. >>>> >>>> >>>You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on >>>broadcast >>>tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. X-rated language, explicit >>>real >>>violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. Heard you were all in for the >>>new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. >>>Good for you, quite liberal actually. >> >> But YOU want to restrict political speech on the airwaves? >> >No, you have defined "political" speech to be what you say it is, which is >bullshit. Censorship is its already being practiced, as such, in a fair >system, your guy is out of line, needs to go. >

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message news:pefuo45b3j6lepr5si9ll8n3101srv68de@4ax.com... > On Sun, 8 Feb 2009 14:10:40 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> > wrote: > >> >>"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com> wrote in message >>news:1h6uo4ll0n8iofro421989of0c1msaqch0@4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 19:59:23 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Joe Long" <nospam@spam.com> wrote in message >>>>news:d4idnUljcMh2dRHUnZ2dnUVZ_j0AAAAA@giganews.com... >>>>> FL Turbo wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a >>>>>>> free >>>>>>> speech >>>>>>> issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the >>>>>>> new >>>>>>> leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me you're only Trolling. >>>>>> Please. >>>>> >>>>> Although he's probably trolling, there are plenty of people in this >>>>> country who DO believe such drivel. >>>>> >>>>>> I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this >>>>>> country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully >>>>>> protected by the Constitution. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please tell me I'm wrong about that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe it's a majority. You find it mostly in the more >>>>> Liberal >>>>> universities and other "Politically Correct" enclaves. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>You rw types are so into free speech, full nudity and sex acts on >>>>broadcast >>>>tv, open smoking and iv drug use all hours. X-rated language, explicit >>>>real >>>>violence and sex rock music on NBC and CBS. Heard you were all in for >>>>the >>>>new 24x7 Wahabism broadcast channel sponsored completely by the Saudis. >>>>Good for you, quite liberal actually. >>> >>> But YOU want to restrict political speech on the airwaves? >>> >>No, you have defined "political" speech to be what you say it is, which is >>bullshit. Censorship is its already being practiced, as such, in a fair >>system, your guy is out of line, needs to go. >> > > Uh, pardonez moi? > Hell, you don't even speak American, what you doing arguing American politics. Go away froggie.

"FL Turbo" <noemail@notime.com > wrote in message news:ce5po4900ajerf1md048jd3oon1lj3ideg@4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 08:58:07 -0600, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> > wrote: > >> >><wsuleifj@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:5748608f-714d-43a9-977c-b47c396de7f5@z27g2000prd.googlegroups.com... >>On Feb 6, 4:50 am, "mccard" <no_won@no_won.none> wrote: >>> "brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message >>> >>> news:7uus56xaao.ln2@recgroups.com... >>> >>> > On Feb 5 2009 8:45 PM, Alim Nassor wrote: >>> >>> > All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They >>> > think nobody listens to him anyway. >>> >>> Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free >>> society >>> can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly >>> small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an illness, a >>> destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current target is >>> destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party. >>> So >>> from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such >>> a >>> bad thing :) >> >>>>Boggles my mind that liberals feel perfectly okay about this >>>>"censorship whenever we disapprove of what's being said" policy... >> >>Censorship is about free speech, what Rush is now doing is not a free >>speech >>issue. His emissions are paid political propaganda by and for the new >>leader of the Republican, check that, Rushbot Party. > > Please tell me you're only Trolling. > Please. > > I would hate to think that there is a majority of people in this > country so ignorant as to believe that political speech is not fully > protected by the Constitution. > > If Rush takes his load to satellite like Howard Stern or cable I have no problems with his right to say whatever. On cable or satellite he could smoke his cigars, snort oxycontin, sit in his underwear, drink fine brandy and get blow jobs doing his show, no problem. He does that on broadcast tv or radio, he's over the line. Same with the sputum he is producing now on those broadcast airwaves, over the line. Get him off.

> Since you refused to read my previous posts regarding the Democrats > desire to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" here is something just a > bit shorter that maybe your attention span can grasp. > > From a recent radio interview. > > BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. Theyíve > got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices > heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine? > > SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think itís absolutely time to pass a > standard. Now, whether itís called the Fairness Standard, whether itís > called something else ó I absolutely think itís time to be bringing > accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked > rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all > have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there > needs to be some accountability and standards put in place. > > BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the > United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them > accountable? > > SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions > with colleagues and, you know, I feel like thatís gonna happen. Yep. > > > UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans, > a liberal talk radio executive.

All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They think nobody listens to him anyway.

> > All this is just to get Rush off the air. Why do liberals care? They > think nobody listens to him anyway. > > Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free society can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a distinctly small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an illness, a destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current target is destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the Rushbot party. So from another point of view, maybe if he stays a little longer, not such a bad thing :)

> Rush is the closest thing to Joseph Goebbels that a formerly free > society can have. Rush is a paid political propaganda machine for a > distinctly small minority position (radical right wingnuts). He is an > illness, a destructive force, and needs to be off the air. His current > target is destruction of the Republican party, remaking it into the > Rushbot party. So from another point of view, maybe if he stays a > little longer, not such a bad thing :)

This reminds me a little of a television interview back in the '60s during the so-called "Free Speech Movement" at Berkley. A bunch of yahoos had just shouted down some speaker, and they interviewed one of them. It went something like, "Don't you believe in free speech?" "Hell yes, man!" "Do you believe everyone has a right to express their ideas?" "Shit yeah, man!" "Well, then, don't you believe this fellow had a right to make his speech?" "Hell no, man, he's a fascist!!"